Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel 140 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Joseph wrote: Why would anyone care whether the soil of the land of Noah was never again to be flooded? ... Who would care about the land more than the people?

    I don't see that Faithful used the word "soil." As I have said here before, local flood advocates believe that the words "the land" in the Genesis flood account refer to "the land" that was then inhabited by Noah and his family. Here and elsewhere in the scriptures the words "the land" refer to more than a plot of ground. When we today refer to "the land of Egypt" are we speaking only of the soil of Egypt, or are we also referring to all the animals and people who live on that soil? We are, of course, referring to the soil, animals and people of the land of Egypt. The same was true when God promised Noah that a flood would never again destroy the land he then lived in. Yes, God was then referring to the soil which the flood had just covered. But He was also referring to Noah's descendants who would live on that soil and become part of that "land" for thousands of years to come.

    Joseph, who seems to think the Bible only uses the words "the land" to describe a plot of soil, and who has also shown that he knows how to use a concordance, might try using one to look up the word "land." If he does he will find that Genesis most often uses this word in the way I have just described. For instance, Genesis 12:10 tells us that "There was a famine in the land." Now, there could not be a famine in the soil. Unless this verse is telling us about a bunch of hungy ants, beetles and worms. So in using the words "the land" in this passage of scripture, and many others Joseph can find in his concordance, it is clear that the writer of Genesis often used those words to refer to a specific geographical area, together with the people who inhabited it.

    So when God promised that a flood would never again destroy "the land" which a flood had just destroyed, He was referring to far more than a plot of ground. He was referring to a community of people who would in future years inhabit that ground, many of whom would be Noah's descendants.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Joseph,

    If you want, I will summarize the best of your arguments and spoon feed them to aChristian. You have spent much time presenting pretty good arguments that show how ridiculous the world-wide flood story is, and that was the whole reason I started this thread: Jesus quoted that same account!

    As I said, I will take the time to summarize the gist of this thread and watch aChristian squim in the facts. Yes?

    I'm only offering to do this because most people don't read threads like this. They have the attention span of a quantum particle. Barely.

    Farkel

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward
    As I said, I will take the time to summarize the gist of this thread and watch aChristian squim in the facts. Yes?

    By all means, Farkel, go ahead with my blessings. Make sure you don't overlook the post just prior to the last one by aChristian, the one in which I make my Psalm argument.

    On a separate matter, forum members may wish to read my argument which advances the thesis that there were at least two different--and conflicting--flood stories woven into one; that argument appears in a new thread I've just started.

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

    * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Joseph wrote to Farkel: Make sure you don't overlook the post just prior to the last one by aChristian, the one in which I make my Psalm argument.

    Real proud of that one, are you Joseph? Too bad. Because, as I will now show, that is your worst argument yet.

    You quote Psalm 104:5-9 as proof that the Bible teaches that our entire planet was once completely covered with water. For once you are right. In fact here you are actually right twice. For the Bible does in fact teach that the our entire planet was once completely covered with water. And Psalms 104:5-9 does describe that time.

    However, just like all of your other attempts to prove that the Bible teaches that Noah's flood was global, for the sole purpose of attacking the Bible's credibility, this one too falls apart when it is examined by anyone who knows the Bible. Or even by anyone who owns a good cross reference Bible, or even a bad one such as the JW New World Translation. When any of these people read Ps.104:6 they immediately recognize that this verse is not even referring to Noah's flood. It is referring to the time billions of years earlier, when God "set the earth on its foundations." (Ps. 104:5)

    All Bible scholars know this. Even JW Bible scholars (though that is a bit of an oxymoron). For all cross reference Bibles, including the JW NWT, at Ps.104:6 refer Bible readers back, not to the Genesis flood account in Gen. 5-9, but to the Genesis creation account in Gen. 1. Specifically they all refer us back to Gen. 1:2. There we read, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Why do all Bible scholars know that Ps. 104:6 is referring to Gen.1:2? Because they, like Joseph, read the context of verse 6, namely verse 5 which tells us that the writer of this verse was referring to the time when God "set the earth on its foundations." But, unlike Joseph, the words which they read in Ps.104:5 actually caused them to stop and think for a moment.

    Joseph used this passage in Psalms to prove that the Bible cannot be trusted in matters like its accounts of the history of the earth. However, it actually proves just the opposite. How so? Because this verse and the verse its writer was influenced by, Gen.1:2, tell us that at the time our planet was first being formed by God it was completely covered with water. And that is also what modern science now tells us.

    Modern science tells us that about 4.4 billion years ago earth's atmosphere was up to 70 times as dense as it is today. The young hot earth was then filling its primitive atmosphere with water vapor at a prodigious rate. Yet the earth and its atmosphere were both too hot to allow condensation to take place. But then, as the earths surface and atmosphere cooled enough to permit the due point to be reached, rain began to fall. Rain then fell continually for thousands of years to produce an ocean which completely covered the earth. Finally the rain stopped and clear skies appeared above this global ocean. Then about 4.3 billion years ago land masses, including mountains, began to rise from earth's global ocean. (By the way, that's why there are now sea shells on mountain tops.) The water that had previously covered these mountains "fled" into "valleys" which we now call "ocean basins," and it will never again cover earth's continents.

    Modern science tells us all this happened just as the writer of Ps.104:6-9 recounted to his God, "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth."

    By the way, Joseph, cross reference Bibles also cross reference those last couple sentences with Gen.1:9,10. There we read, "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so. God called the dry ground 'land,' and the gathered waters he called 'seas.' " You really should get yourself a cross reference Bible, Joseph. Using one before making a post like you just made could save you from some similar embarrassments in the future.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    aChristian,

    You missed the point of my post. The Psalm passages show that the Psalm author blends the Genesis creation story and the Noah story to describe a God who set the earth on its foundations, caused the waters--which covered the high mountains--to recede, and commanded never to return again. The latter two elements of the story--covering the mountains, the command to never return--are present only in the flood story; the others come from Genesis. This author, in blending the two stories, shows that he believed the Noah flood covered the whole earth, not just one area.

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

    * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Farkel,

    You just said to Joseph, "You have spent much time presenting pretty good arguments that show how ridiculous the WORLD-WIDE flood story is."

    Actually he has spent no time here doing that. He has spent all his time trying to discredit the belief that Genesis is describing a LOCAL flood.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    I believe that the world-wide flood theory is nonsense, but I believe the notion that the Bible describes a local flood is equally nonsensical.

    Speaking of the world-wide flood, aChristian, why haven't you responded to my post which described the Babylonian origins of the Biblical flood story?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

    * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Joseph wrote: This author, in blending the two stories, shows that he believed that Noah's flood covered the whole earth.

    BALONEY! As I just clearly showed, Psalm 104: 5-9 is descibing events which ALL took place at the time God "set the earth on its foundations." This passage of scripture makes no reference whatsoever to Noah's flood. It entirely refers to events which took place over 4 billion years earlier, events which are described in Gen:1:2,9,10. Try reading a good Bible commentary. Matthew Henry's comes to mind.

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Joseph,

    You asked: Speaking of the world-wide flood, aChristian, why haven't you responded to my post which described the Babylonian origins of the Biblical flood story?

    Because at the time you made those comments I was as tired of you as I am now. Also because I felt whatever someone else then had to say about it was sufficient. I'll tell you what. You now know as well as I do that your Ps. 104:5-9 argument was a poor one. Show me you are an honest man by admitting it, and I will discuss your alleged "Babylonian origins" of the Bible's flood account with you.

  • Faithful2Jah
    Faithful2Jah

    Seeing the less than brilliant comment Farkel just made about how Joe has "spent much time presenting pretty good arguments that show how ridiculous the world-wide flood story is", I think he may be referring to himself when he said "most people don't read threads like this. They have the attention span of a quantum particle. Barely." LOL

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit